I see what Tim is saying, but Protestants in general dont realize just how serious and real the Final Judgment is. In this day and age most Protestants are under the impression the Final Judgment will be a reward ceremony for all those who received the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
That is a distortion however, the real Final Judgment is about how you acted on earth with extra emphasis on "to whom much is given much is expected". Though the Pope is answerable to God alone just IMAGINE what standard he will be held to! This isnt a joke. The key to all of this is to remember how the Final Judgment fits in.
As for Luther making himself pope and all the questionable and even outrageous stuff he said, why does he get a free pass while the Papacy is constantly deamonized? Its called doublethink.
I have added some more quotes from Tim (another paper of his) in the middle section, and modified a few lines since I first posted this.
The peanut gallery has already chimed in:
#
Tim,
I’m glad you’re posting again! As I as said before, your academic formation only highlights your God-given gifts. Your observations have so much substance because you’ve read the primary sources, while those who attempt to respond have to consult Google searches and Wikipedia entries in order to see if your observations are correct!
Comment by kepha — December 1, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
490788
The viewpoint that Augustinus Triumphus appears to advancing sounds very similar to the language that advocates used to explain the divine right of kings doctrine which can summarized by Louis XIV's statement, "L'etat c'est moi." It is interesting when Protestants talk about the office of the Pope and its authority, they ignore the fact that at the time these statements were being said, the Papacy was not only a religious authority but a temporal power as well. If one were to compare the language used by the European monarchs after the rise of Protestantism, I believe that one would find that they claimed the same authority that the Papacy claimed.
This is the only thing I will say on this subject on this blog, because I am extremely busy with papers and exams and cannot justify the time to get into extended discussions.
First, Dave, you're right that we are getting along OK and this isn't a flare up of our old troubles. I don't think the "vs" language is very helpful, since I neither asked for nor committed to a debate with you, but I guess that's just your style.
Second, I'm sorry you can't find Augustinus Triumphus in any of your sources. Most Medieval stuff I deal with is, admittedly, in difficult to get books that are very expensive. The only way I have managed to get access to them over the last few years is through good university libraries. Otherwise I would not know anything about most of this stuff myself! Nevertheless, Dave, just because you can't find the guy in any of your sources doesn't mean he's not important, and it's certainly no answer to any of my points.
Third, most Catholic responses to the original post thusfar entirely miss the point. The point is to look at the nitty-gritty of the development of papal doctrine in the context of the broad, complex Western tradition in order to shed light on what was going on at the time of the Reformation.
No Catholic yet has tried to take up the point about the seemingly unitarian assumptions at the root of men like Augustinus Triumphus' view of the papacy, nor has anyone demonstrated any familiarity with how this type of excessive blustering was at the very heart of the papacy's self-concept all the way through the later Middle Ages. I don't care if you can't find Augustinus in Wikipedia or Brittanica. That simply doesn't even remotely matter to the point of invoking his witness. Numerous canonists and theologians thought exactly like he did about the pope, not to mention numerous popes themselves, and this profoundly influenced the way they presented their authority claims at the time of the Reformation. The popes thought they were God on earth, and that's why they got opposed the way that they did.
Fourth, no Catholic yet has taken up the point of the pastoral neglect of these bloviating Gods-on-earth, how they abused and destroyed the sheep given to their care by God, and how evil men full of worldly ambition, or else good men in the grip of Idealism and lacking in elementary compassion for the common Christian man suffering under a damnable tyranny simply made excuses for the popes for centuries, until at last, no more excuses would suffice because Christendom had had enough.
I don't care what any of you say, you are simply intellectually out to lunch if you don't understand that when a pastor becomes a wolf and kills his sheep, someone has to remove him. I don't give a flying flip about your precious dogmas and your development of doctrine claims and your blustering smack talk about "rebels." If you can't deal with the simple fact that a pastor is put on earth to take care of sheep but
Can you guys explain Dr. Enloe's argument to me? It seems like he is arguing:
1. Many popes made exaggerated claims about the papacy, and this began to occur centuries before the Reformation. 2. Belief in the papacy implies a Unitarian theology and is not consistent with a Trinitarian theology. and 3. (1) and (2) are logically related somehow, (1) implies (2) or (1) is inductive evidence for (2). I don't get it!
He seems frustrated that no Catholics are engaging his argument. I'm not as bright as most of the people reading this, but I cannot help but wonder if many of those he'd like to engage, like me, don't understand his argument.
Sorry. I meant "I cannot help but wonder if many of the people he'd like to engage don't understand his argument--just as I don't understand his argument." I didn't mean that I am "in his league," that I am one of the people he'd like to engage.
tIME SAID: you don't understand that when a pastor becomes a wolf and kills his sheep, someone has to remove him. I don't give a flying flip about your precious dogmas and your development of doctrine claims and your blustering smack talk about "rebels." If you can't deal with the simple fact that a pastor is put on earth to take care of sheep but"
i really want Tim to finish this post because it addresses the concerns I had before converting. Jesus talked thoroughly about having wolves as shepherds, lax, bad shepherds but He never mentioned anyway of getting rid of them.
My perspective of papal corruption was that it was thorough... yet the church didn't disintegrate like the anglicans. The RC Church didn't change its doctrine about sexual morality or political action like so many of the wolves shepherding the european and american branches of the church demanded.
It is what helped convince me of the supernatural (from God) nature of the Church.
Please Tim, finish what you wrote at 10:28 last night.
I gotta go to work.
Wayen
William Tighe is a Catholic historian. Tim already admitted in the combox that he couldn't match wits with him. And he wrote:
Tim, the reason that I referred specifically to the article on Leo is because Ullmann (no vulgar Catholic apologist, he, and in his own life a rather lacksadaisically practicing Catholic) seems to be arguing in his article that once one understands the Roman Law juridical notion of “heres” (heir) applied to the papacy from the mid Fourth Century onwards, and par excellence by Leo, as in the phrase “indignus heres Beati Petri,” that the pope, albeit personally unworthy (indignus), is yet the “heir” in the full Roman juridical sense of “heirship” — that is, the pope inherits the legal persona of St. Peter, including all of the powers and capacities irrevocably bestowed upon him by Christ — those phrases which you cite (to some of which he alludes specifically, including some by Augustinus Triumphus) fall into place as statements about “juridical equivalence” of the Pope’s authority over the Church with Christ’s. What Ullmann does clearly assert is that all of this medieval rhetoric, including that of Augustinus Triumphus, is simply an extended midrash upon Leo.
— Walter Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” *Journal of Theological Studies,* n.s., XI (1960), pp.25-51
— Walter Ullmann, “The Significance of the ‘Epistola Clementis’ in the Pseudo-Clementines,” *JTS* (same volume, same year), pp. 295-317
Comment by William Tighe — December 2, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
And more from Tim:
---------------
Dr. Tighe, I will do my best to read the Leo article you sent soon. Today, however, I have to read a bunch of Aquinas as well as review quite a few pages of notes on Christology for a test tomorrow night.
Steve P, you ask if I think 1 is inductive evidence for 2. Maybe you should tell me. It’s you Catholics that run all over creation insulting the integrity of other Christians’ faith with bombastic rantings about the virtues of having the One subsuming the Many. It’s you Catholics who run all over creation acting like non-Catholics are simple morons who don’t know jack about Church history and are utterly cut off from tradition. It’s you Catholics who run all over creation pretending to have a superior connection to Christ and a superior commitment to basic Christian orthodoxy.
And so, given the bombast and blustering and bloviating that you Catholics spread all over creation, I think it’s only fair that every now and then you have to face up to some hard questions, stop making lame-ass excuses for the drastic evils that the papal system has foisted upon the Church at various points in history, and just basically demonstrate a little bit of intellectual self-critical ability and accountability.
What Dr. Tighe referred to as “vulgar” Catholic apologetics may in fact be vulgar, but unfortunately it’s the the very fact that it is vulgar (from vulgus-relating to the mob) that makes it so deeply offensive to thinking people. This isn’t the age of absolute monarchy. Catholics don’t get to just beg all the important questions and be as “insulting as they wanna be” without ever having to answer for it. Why don’t you stop putting the question of unitarianism in papal doctrine off on God and think about it yourself?
Comment by Tim Enloe — December 3, 2007 @ 9:50 am
And of course, we heard not one word of "protest" about Luther's idiotic quasi-prophetic comments . . .
So a canon lawyer who personally believed something that the Church does NOT teach and wrote it down on an obscure document that was never presented to a coucil has proven 2000 years of the Catholic teaching to be wrong.
Thats leap even for a protestant.
I have really put my foot in my mouth. Will everyone here please forgive me. I was trying to understand Dr. Enloe's argument. It looked to me like he was arguing:
1. Several Popes made exaggerated claims about the papacy, and these claims began to be made not immediately prior to the Reformation but a few centuries before; 2. The belief in the papacy implies Unitarianism; and 3. (1) implies or is evidence for (2).
I wasn't making fun of Dr. Enloe. It really did honestly appear to me that that was his argument (summarized) and I couldn't believe it, which is why I was asking for clarification.
I certainly had no intention of insulting Dr. Enloe or ranting or calling him a "moron" (obviously he is no moron and obviously he is brighter and far more knowledgeable than I am). I also did not mean to imply that God is a Unitarian. What I meant was that I do not understand how God's choosing to put one man (ultimately) in charge of the church rather than a committee of men would be inconsistent with God's being a Trinity.
I hope everyone here will forgive me for not making myself clear and I publically beg Dr. Enloe to forgive me. I am a total jerk and I honestly feel very sick about this. I mean I think I may throw up--no kidding.
As a matter of historical scholarship - as opposed to polemical apologetics - Tim Enloe's post seems to be an inferior work by an academic.
First, as Mr. Armstrong points out, there is the lack of context for Triumphus' writings. Reading Enloe's article, I didn't get any sense that Triumphus was writing in a period when philosophers were moving away from systematic theology to deeper involvement in political philosophy.
Likewise, there was no mention that Triumphus' writings were written in the midst of a particular controversy where the "spiritual Franciscans", including William of Ockham, were claiming that the Papacy was heretical for denying the "poverty of Christ," with its implication that only those people who owned nothing would enter Heaven.
Ironically, then, the Popes and Triumphus were not the heretics - their opponents were. So chalk one up for the Holy Spirit working through the Church...I guess.
Now, it is true that most Catholics don't know about that particular controversy. Heck, the only reason I had even an inkling about the subject was that I happened to finish off a Teaching Company lecture series on Medieval Philosophy last week that described William of Ockhams involvement in the controversy. I agree that it would be nice if more people knew more history, but Enloe's article doesn't advance that goal.
Further, I'd have been interested in knowing more about the context so that I could judge how Triumphus' writings were received.
For example, it seems clear that the Emperor was championing the Spiritual Franciscan claim in an effort to undermine the Papal authority over things like appointment of bishops (which clearly had more to do with whether the Reformation took off in a given area than the feeling of oppression by the average Christian, as Enloe claims.)
Hence, Triumphus' work was undoubtedly seen as political polemics to a great extent, in the same way that a lot of Luther's hyperbole was designed to shore up the position of his followers.
That understanding explains why Triumphus is so unknown today - he was intellectually marginal to the true current of thought as outlined by Mr. Armstrong, although he makes for great polemical fodder today, as Giovanni points out, supra.
It also explains why there was no offiical condemnation of Triumphus: he was politically useful and his writings were understood as being hyperbolic at the time.
At least that is an area that a historian might look into for the edification of us laymen.
Steve P...I didn't get the impression that you were calling Dr. Enloe a moron...maybe he was refering to prior discussions with others?
Finally, Steve P., I don't think you have anything to apologize for. Your questions were fair questions.
I will say this, though, not in the interest of picking at old wounds, but what is going on at Reformed Catholic? It used to be even-handed and temperate. Now, it seems to be a polemical site refighting the big issues of the 17th Century.
My rule of thumb for distinguishing between a fair intellectual discussion and prejudiced polemics is that the line is crossed when the argument starts to focus on traditional tropes that are identifiied with bigotry. (Call it the "Buckley Rule.") Hence, it may be fair to discuss America's policy with respect to Israel, but when someone starts sounding off about Jewish money influencing American politics I start to think that we have strayed into the fever swamp where someone has an emotional investment in something. When Pat Buchanan opposed the first Iraq War on the grounds that the soldiers would be named Tom and Dick and not Moishe and Itzak, it was time to throw a flag on the play.
Likewise, when a Protestant starts to play off tropes that all/some?? Catholics believe that the Pope is really "God on Earth" or that Catholic priests are uniquely given to sexual exploitation of their flock, I think we have moved out of the area of fair intellectual exchange into some deep seated emotional issues.
All in all, it seems like an odd post from a historian.
My two cents, for what it's worth.
I was quasi-quoted by a great historian... WHOO, HOO!!!
I publically beg Dr. Enloe to forgive me
I'm sure he will, but just for clarification, Tim is not a "Dr." -- nor does he pretend to be, like James White does. He is currently in his first year of graduate school for history at the University of Dallas.
Tim Enloe's post seems to be an inferior work by an academic. . . . All in all, it seems like an odd post from a historian.
He is neither. See my previous comment..
As for the RefCath blog lately, this is altogether true. It started out a polemically moderate place of discussion of these more or less ecumenical ideas, but it has become increasingly polemical as time goes by, with strong animus shown against the Catholic Church, Catholic apologists, Catholic converts, and Cardinal Newman.
I have been documenting this sad descent and trend all along (on my Catholic Apologetics page, section on "Anti-Apologetics"). Recently, head honcho Kevin Johnson made the goofy, wacko argument that the sex scandal in the Catholic Church somehow suggests that episcopal, hierarchical government itself is suspect, and I responded here.
At the same time, Kevin Johnson has been publicly kow-towing to James White: almost rhetorically kissing his feet at times. I think it is a real probability that some emotional event must have occurred in the interim, because of the extremity and irrationality of the rhetoric.
I don't think he is going to forgive me. I get the impression he thinks I'm somebody he knows and I'm using an alias. Regardless, I did mess up badly and I feel bad about it.
Beyond Mr. Enloe being angry at me, I'm still curious about his argument. He seems to be saying that he thinks that The papacy is tacitly relying on Unitarian assumptions, that a Trinitarian cannot consistently believe in the papacy. I don't see what his reasons for thinking that are, however, I don't see what his argument is.
Can someone summarize his argument for me?
Thanks for the explanation about Mr. Enloe's background.
The way that he framed his article suggested that he was offering it as a piece of scholarship.
Nonetheless, as a graduate student in history, I would think that he'd be interested in showing some kind of "chronological open-mindedness" to the subject, i.e., what did Triumphus think he was doing? What was going on his Triumphus' world that made his argument intelligible, or not? How was Triumphus' arguments received by his contemporaries? How were they viewed by his successors?
It's all very well and good to sit back in our day and age and rail against some prior era from our perspective, but that hardly accomplishes the ends of the project of history, which is to understand the past as we would a foreign country.
I'm not a historian, incidently. I'm a lawyer, but I have a Bachelors in History and do a lot of reading and listening to lectures about history.
The subject of the "Spiritual Franciscans" and the dispute over the "poverty of Christ" makes an appearance in "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco, as I recall. Other than that, the last lecture in this excellent series mentions the turn in the 14th Century toward political philosoph, in part because of that issue.
Interestingly, Triumphus' order - the Hermits of St. Augustine - apparently became the Augustinian Order. to which Luther belonged. So maybe extreme hyperbole was a tradition that Luther inherited from Triumphus. 
Steve P.,
Enloe seems to be saying that the arguments used to justify a single pope as head of the church (and therefore per Triumphus, Nicolas and Gregory, the "world") is heretical.
Enloe starts with the "Medieval theological-canonical phrases: omnis multitudo derivatur ab uno…ad unum reducitur–”all Plurality is derived from Unity…[and] to the Unity it returns" and claims that medieval notions of authority were derived from this theological idea.
Then he argues that this theological idea is heretical because it upsets the balance between the One and the Many which is at the heart of Trinitarianism.
Then he argues that the monarchical papacy was based on the (heretical) idea of "omnis multido etc." and so th emonarchical papacy is a heretical outgrowth of this heretical idea.
At bottom, Enloe seems to think that the Christian ideal is a kind of pluralism in which a monarch exists with an aristocracy in conformity with natural law ideas that a monarchy alone - like the papacy, he thinks - is tyranical, and from there it's all wolves and sheep.
There might be some things to think about in that idea, but I have a few initial problems.
First, he's ripping some ideas out of their context. It wasn't as if the papacy existed in isolation. Western medieval political philosophy was based on the "two swords" idea in which the religion and the state had their own spheres. The debate was about which was predominate.
So, why doesn't the complete theory satisfy his idea that Trinitarianism requires a pluralism?
Second, the ideal in the political sphere was not pluralistic. The Western emperor was striving for rulership on the Byzantine model where he was an autocrat. Emperors couldn't bring that off in the West, but it wasn't because of their political philosophy.
Third, it was the fact that the Church asserted independence, and even superiority, that we have things like a rule of law and political liberty.
He seems to be saying that he thinks that The papacy is tacitly relying on Unitarian assumptions, that a Trinitarian cannot consistently believe in the papacy. I don't see what his reasons for thinking that are, however, I don't see what his argument is.
Can someone summarize his argument for me?
I don't see that he made one at all in this regard. He simply asserted. It's the distinction between mere assertion and argument with corresponding evidences presented.
This is the only thing I will say on this subject on this blog, because I am extremely busy with papers and exams and cannot justify the time to get into extended discussions.
That's fine, but surely you understand that if you put a controversial, deliberately (?) provocative paper up in public, that people will respond to it, whether you have time to play along or not.
First, Dave, you're right that we are getting along OK and this isn't a flare up of our old troubles.
Good.
I don't think the "vs" language is very helpful, since I neither asked for nor committed to a debate with you, but I guess that's just your style.
It's simply a quick device to indicate to readers that there is a back-and-forth dialogue involved: more than one viewpoint expressed in other words. No animosity is intended to be conveyed: only doctrinal disagreement.
Second, I'm sorry you can't find Augustinus Triumphus in any of your sources. Most Medieval stuff I deal with is, admittedly, in difficult to get books that are very expensive. The only way I have managed to get access to them over the last few years is through good university libraries. Otherwise I would not know anything about most of this stuff myself! Nevertheless, Dave, just because you can't find the guy in any of your sources doesn't mean he's not important, and it's certainly no answer to any of my points.
Then how does one determine if any historical figure is "important"? if a person can't be found in standard reference and historical sources such as the ones I mentioned, then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the person was not terribly important or influential. I don't see how that is even arguable.
I don't care if you can't find Augustinus in Wikipedia or Brittanica. That simply doesn't even remotely matter to the point of invoking his witness.
To the contrary, it is quite relevant to your argument, because (as so often) you cite some obscure medieval canonist to make (typically) some Grand Argument. I reply by saying, "who is this guy and why should I care at all about what his opinion is?"
I cited many people who ARE known and recognized as important Catholic historical figures, and they contradict what Triumphus had to say.
Ditto several popes.
Numerous canonists and theologians thought exactly like he did about the pope, not to mention numerous popes themselves,
Why, in heaven's name, don't you cite them, then? Instead you latch on one obscure person.
and this profoundly influenced the way they presented their authority claims at the time of the Reformation. The popes thought they were God on earth, and that's why they got opposed the way that they did.
And Luther thought he was God's Man of the Hour and his opinions identical with God. What's the difference? Yet you haven't as much as even mentioned Luther; nor has anyone on the RefCath thread, which is ignoring a substantive reply to a post there, as usual.
Fourth, no Catholic yet has taken up the point of the pastoral neglect of these bloviating Gods-on-earth, how they abused and destroyed the sheep given to their care by God, and how evil men full of worldly ambition, or else good men in the grip of Idealism and lacking in elementary compassion for the common Christian man suffering under a damnable tyranny simply made excuses for the popes for centuries, until at last, no more excuses would suffice because Christendom had had enough.
Have you already forgotten how you thanked me for mentioning this corruption in my recent reply to the two Lutheran pastors? Therefore, it is not "no Catholic" who has talked about that. At least one has (and of course, so have others, too).
I don't care what any of you say, you are simply intellectually out to lunch if you don't understand that when a pastor becomes a wolf and kills his sheep, someone has to remove him.
And what do we replace the papacy with? The godly, pious German princes (Luther's and Melanchthon's solution)? The divine right of kings (England's and Calvinist Scotland's solution)? The president of the Missouri Synod Lutherans or of the Southern Baptists?
I don't give a flying flip about your precious dogmas and your development of doctrine claims
That's obviously why not much dialogue has taken place.
Tim said he had no more time for discussion of our criticisms, in his comment above, of 12-2-07, 10:28 PM. Since then, he has somehow found time to make six relatively lengthy comments at Ref Cath:
1) 12-3-07, 9:50 AM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
493385
2) 12-3-07, 1:47 PM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
493584
3) 12-3-07, 3:42 PM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
493754
4) 12-3-07, 4:00 PM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
493792
5) 12-3-07, 4:51 PM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
493857
6) 12-3-07, 6:41 PM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
494041
These all add up to 2705 words (or eight pages in Word -- Times New Roman 12 format -- with an inch around all sides). I think Tim, like most of us, makes time for what he wants to make time for. And I think he could make time for us, too. We've been respectful; we haven't insulted him. We're trying to have the dialogue he is calling (?) for (?).
Peter and Dave,
Thank you!
In http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
495425
"The lot of you Catholic “casual” people are done commenting on my posts."
Sigh.
Hopefully he will keep posting his papers so we ignorant, blind papalists might one day be given the light to see Trvth and Hiztory the way Mr Enloe does.
You are being sarcastic, of course. If he turns the combox off fewer people will read his papers since it will be impossible to interact with him. He might as well use a typewriter rather than the internet. I wonder if he is aware that his cheering section is not reading his papers and the people who are thinking about his theses and criticizing them or asking him questions (the people who anger him, remarkably!) are reading his papers.
I am not a historian but I can tell you that he does not think like a true student, like a scientist. When you discover something, when you arrive at a new insight, you are excited to share it with others and don't quickly tire of questions, even very basic and uninformed questions. You aren't angered when people challenge and criticize your theory you are happy to be able test it and refine it (or discard it for something better if that's what the challenges lead to). Maybe he doesn't belong in academia, maybe his vocation is elsewhere.
It is really sad. Now they've shut down the whole site and replaced it with a passage of Holy Scripture concerning not having bitterness and anger. I guess they realized that the contributors of that site could not control themselves.
It'll be interesting to see what happens over there. I predict it'll be back up within two weeks -- maybe as soon as one week. I don't believe for a second we've heard the last of Kevin Johnson on the Internet. He has too much preaching and condescending in him to bring out for the edification of the ignorant masses.
I, Yuri, was a having a charitiable (I though) discussion with Kevin Armstrong on the 'Tyrants and Tyranny" thread. He made several assertions and demanded an answer...I tried to answer but apparently I am banned....that's fair.
If he is watching here is my response...
Kevin,
In response...the only things that you outlined were several assertions.
You asserted that I am not interpreting scripture correctly. How do you know that I am not interpreting scripture correctly?
You asserted that the rooted belief in apostolic succession was an "old error." How do you know that it is an "old error?"
I can't really disprove such assertions...all I can do is provide scripture which I believe is contrary to your assertion and church fathers which I believe is contrary to your position.
I've done that. We simply don't interpret these things the same way. You can assert that I am wrong...but that doesn't make it so.
You asserted that Calvin rightly interprets 1 Tim and 2 Tim as respects to ordination…I assert that he was incorrect. How can we determine who is right? I’ll go to Tradition which you reject because you assert it is an “old error” and then you fall back on reformed Tradition which I call a “new error.”
This is why I said, "We shall agree to disagree."
(PS...this will be my last post I suppose since I've apparenlty been banned...so much for "...a demonstration of the veracity of your view will be welcome..."
All confident Catholics are eventually banned over there. Join the crowd. You should be proud. If they have kicked you out, then you must have been doing something right. If you were dumb and ignorant, and/or non-assertive, like they want Catholics to be, then you would be welcomed as a great friend.
I agree with Jonathan Prejean's observation: RefCath has become a bigger joke and farce than the most ridiculous purely anti-Catholic sites, and that is because these guys should know better. They think Catholics are Christians, yet proceed to trash catholicism and catholics, virtually on a daily basis.
The more sensible ones, who used to be more active, like Michael Pahls and Paul Owen (both now Anglicans), mostly stick to the background now, and poke holes in KJ's and Josh Strodtbeck's flatulent, raving "arguments" while maintaining a semblance of "fellowship" (keeping up appearances of pseudo-unity).
It's very very sad to observe. This could have been a great, cutting-edge gathering place for all kinds of Christians, where we could have talked frankly about issue, with mutual respect.
Instead, it has become an idiot-fest and mudslinging enterprise towards Catholics. Great going Kevin, and you who let him run on at the mouth, to the great detriment of Christian unity and harmonious relations.
Oh...in my above thread I meant, "Kevin JOHNSON" not Armstrong...sorry.
Dave, you are right that I make time for what I want to make time for. Nevertheless, given my life circumstances there is always a price to be paid for whatever time I give to the Internet, and whether you or anyone else understands or approves of the relative prices I am willing or unwilling to pay is no concern of mine.
That said, and the recent unpleasantness at Reformed Catholicism aside, I remain very desirous of keeping our recent accord alive. This makes it very difficult to figure out how to continue engaging you or your supporters on these points. The points themselves are so deeply controverted, and as I've pointed out to you before our respective methodologies and goals and the audiences at which we aim our materials are vastly different.
I'm working on my last paper for this semester right now, so I have to be brief. Let me just say regarding my last response that, yes, of course it was somewhat rhetorical in places. I saw one objection about my remark that I didn't give a flip about Catholic dogmas. Try to understand that in context, please. I'm not saying Catholic dogmas are not important. I'm only saying that at some point it is not enough for Catholics to appeal to words written on paper as the justification for the positions they take against other Christians.
Words on the paper about the sovereignty of the pope granted to him by Jesus Christ Himself seem very cold and impersonal and inhuman when set next to the spectre of popes abusing and even killing their sheep in the 15th and 16th centuries, and I just simply have no sympathy for a Catholic who is willing to quote cold, impersonal, inhuman words about "Truth" as the answer to an objection based on the drastic irresponsibility of the papacy even to the point of murdering the sheep put into his care by God.
I have no sympathy for a Catholic who thunders about the pope's authority but has a stunted sense of the pope's responsibility. I have no sympathy for a Catholic who thinks the way to respond to the gross sins of a leader is to try to distract attention from the leader by pointing to the sins of a follower (i.e., your tu quoques about Luther's words). This is just wrong, Dave. If the pope is the leader, the pope has to walk the walk of leadership. Talking the talk isn't enough. a leader pointing fingers at other people to take attention away from himself is grossly irresponsible, as are any of his defenders who do the same.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you and other Catholics to understand. I'm not asking you to stop believing Catholic dogma. I'm not asking you to stop defending Catholicism. I'm not asking you to start thinking Protestantism is wonderful. I'm just asking you to learn a little prudence in your tactics and to actually put flesh on your theories about papal power.
Try to understand that Luther was not alone in his views about the papacy, but had a great deal of precedent behind him. Try to understand that reaso
[cont]
Try to understand that Luther was not alone in his views about the papacy, but had a great deal of precedent behind him. Try to understand that reasonable men faced with what they consider to be a drunken captain trying to wreck the ship might just have a point in taking the wheel away from the captain. Maybe if you all could at least exhibit that you understand the rightness of that principle something more productive could come of these discussions.
Making an inductive argument that an exaggerated opinion of the authority of the pope is correlated with Unitarianism would involve finding many examples of theologians who held to both. It does not seem to me that He who will not be named did that, and if knowing more about medieval church history causes one to think a non-sequitur is reasonable I would say ignorance is bliss.
Well, Steve P, I had two reasons for the original post. First was to provide further evidence that Protestants have much to learn from Medieval history, and need not fear Catholic apologetics portrayals of history as being Catholic property. Second was to try to spur Catholics to deeper thought about their own rhetoric of orthodoxy. What good does it do you Catholics to trumpet your superior orthodoxy if papal doctrine itself has serious problems that lead it easily to unitarian excesses?
Maybe there aren't any such problems. But in finding out whether there are, and / or in figuring out how to responsibly deal with them if they are really there, Catholics might learn to be a bit less triumphalistic and a bit more realistic. Contrary to popular opinion, a little self-criticism won't hurt your Catholicism--but might actually help it.
Hi Tim,
I'm just asking you to learn a little prudence in your tactics and to actually put flesh on your theories about papal power.
Glad to oblige:
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...or-
petrine.html
Reply to a Critique of my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy (Dave Armstrong vs. Jason Engwer)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-my-50-
new.html
Second Refutation of the Reductio ad Absurdum Argument for a "Pauline Papacy"
(Dave Armstrong vs. Jason Engwer)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...eductio-
ad.html
Reflections on the Papacy: The Primacy of St. Peter and Biblical Evidences
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...macy-of-
st.html
Dialogue on the Nature of Development of Doctrine (Particularly With Regard to the Papacy) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jason Engwer)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...lopment-
of.html
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...peter-
rock.html
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-st-
peter.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-st-
peter.html
Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
church.html
I have no sympathy for a Catholic who thunders about the pope's authority but has a stunted sense of the pope's responsibility.
I've never yet met a Catholic like this. Would you be so kind as to direct me to one (i.e., who knows something and has some credentials)? Thanks!
I have no sympathy for a Catholic who thinks the way to respond to the gross sins of a leader is to try to distract attention from the leader by pointing to the sins of a follower (i.e., your tu quoques about Luther's words). This is just wrong, Dave.
You seem to have a very dim grasp of argument by analogy and "turning the tables" arguments. You're not alone; not to worry.
The point, of course, was to show the double standard implied in your argument. You want to rail against the papacy and act as if Protestants had something essentially better. So I called your bluff and showed how Luther claimed the exact thing, but with far less grounds and reason.
You want to reject the papacy based on corruption of individual popes? Very well, then, we will play that game in return and reject Protestantism because one of its founders was an admitted inveterate adulterer (Zwingli) and another sanctioned bigamy, the slaughter of the peasants, and of even peaceful Anabaptists, and widespread theft of Catholic Church properties (Luther).
Then we have Henry VIII and all of his savage butcheries. So Anglicanism is obviously false, with a butcher like that in the lead. Yet Melanchthon and other Protestants were happy to hobnob with the new Anglicans, because that gave them potential political and military power.
Hilaire Belloc thought that the "Reformation" probably would have been almost a total failure but for England. Great way to promulgate the "Gospel", huh Tim? By the sword, hanging, drawing and quartering . . .
We can play the "sin card" all day long. It's very easy. The trouble is that it proves nothing one way or the other theologically or ecclesiologically except that . . . people are sinners! (which we already knew).
As I told you on the phone, this repeats the Donatist and Montanist rigorous error and schism. The papacy isn't based on the performance of its worst offenders, but on the Bible and massive patristic support. If you want to talk intelligently to Catholics about the papacy, you have to on that plane. Ranting about sins of old popes accomplishes nothing because we all know about that and reject it as a reason to ditch the papacy or to forsake the Catholic understanding of the office.
If this must be perceived as "arrogant" by some non-Catholics, so be it. We can't please everyone. No one can. Atheists don't like it when any kind of Christian proclaims dogmatic truths that they think are ridiculous. Likewise, Protestants often think Catholics are arrogant and ridiculous. We can't help that. It is in your perception, not inherently in our doctrine.
"What good does it do you Catholics to trumpet your superior orthodoxy if papal doctrine itself has serious problems that lead it easily to unitarian excesses?"
I don't know who you mean by "you Catholics" but my experiences in the last week have shown me that you don't apparently use "you" as a second person plural pronoun, so I won't bother to apologize for seeming to trumpet excessively.
Anyway, I suppose it would do no good for anyone to trumpet if papal doctrine itself has serious problems that lead it easily to "unitarian excesses." The thing is, I just don't see why I SHOULD think that papal doctrine leads easily or even with great difficulty to "unitarian excesses." I understand that you asserted it but I cannot figure out how you have shown any evidence for it.
You have shown evidence for excesses in regards to the authority of the pope, people asserting that he was essentially emperor of the world, but it would be confusing and misleading to label those "unitarian excesses." "Unitarian" generally refers to a denial of the Trinity.
I don't care about popular opinion. I honestly love original and sensational theories and would be pleased as punch if you really could show that standard RC papal doctrine or even an exaggerated view of the papacy tended toward Unitarianism.
I long to be spurred to deeper thought. I just wish I could find something more substantial than this vague series of mental asssociations in your article:
1. The medieval Church tended towards excess in regards to the authority of the papacy, sometimes seeming to view him as the sole pastor of Christians and emperor of the world, all other pastors and kings being mere deputies.
2. Hmm. That reminds me of the philosophical problem of the one vs. the many.
3. Hmm. That reminds me of Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism.
4. Papal doctrine leads to Unitarianism.
Maybe Luther, Zwingli, and Henry VIII were Unitarians.
Commenting by HaloScan
